The Legal Fiction Perpetuated by BitcoinTalk

[bloods-n-cryptos]

This is a cross-post from yet another thread threatening to ban users or remove the Alt-coins forums altogether.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=434310.msg4808581#msg4808581

This was posted here to get appropriate feedback.  I look forward to your comments, if any...

Bitcoin forum, people donated for a Bitcoin forum. Many of those people want Alt Coins gone entirely from Bitcointalk. The Altcoin section was made essentially as an off topic section, to group all non bitcoin crypto currencies in one place that is out of the way from the Bitcoin discussion. The spam is overwhelming the entire forum.

I'm afraid the admins at this forum are so protective of their Bitcoin SHA-256 wealth that they are oblivious to/ignoring the real-world implications of Bitcoin SHA-256's MIT/X11 Open Source License.

Satoshi Nakamoto released Bitcoin SHA-256 under the MIT/X11 Open Source license for the specific purpose of allowing the creation of other versions of Bitcoin (aka Alt-coins).  Yet, the know-it-all forum admins here constantly threaten to ban users and remove discussion of alt-coins not deemed the one official "Bitcoin."

Here's a newsflash:  Bitcoin SHA-256 is not the official Bitcoin.   There is no official Bitcoin after Satoshi stopped working on the client (0.3.19) AND the blockchain forked.  Indeed, under the MIT/X11 Open Source License it is logically impossible for there to be ONE official Bitcoin after the original author's source-code was modified without the origin author and the blockchain forked after such modification.  At that point, Bitcoin SHA-256 technically became an alt-coin called Bitcoin also operating under the MIT/X11 license.  Bitcoin is a protocol.  Bitcoin SHA256 is a crypto-currency.  Re-read this if it doesn't make sense.

Stated differently, it's like creating a Linux forum when Linux came out, calling it a Linux forum, having people donate to the Linux forum, then limiting discussion to RedHat Linux because any other open-source distro is simply an Alt-OS and not the official Linux and is causing too much clutter.  Pretty self-serving and contradictory to the spirit of Open source.

It's your site and you can do what you like, but it is a grave threat to the whole Open-source ecosystem when certain actors have the power to deem one version of an open-source source-code as official and deem others to be unofficial so as to undermine those alternate versions of the open-source source-code.

Again, this is your site, but instead of ignoring the spirit of the MIT/X11 Open Source license, you should change your name from "Bitcoin Forum" to "An Alt-coin named Bitcoin Forum."

However, considering that this forum derives it power from continuing the legal fiction that Bitcoin SHA-256 is the only official Bitcoin I doubt we'll see a name or policy change.

If you disagree that the forum operators are going against the spirit (if not the letter) of the MIT/X11 Open Source License, I look forward to your response.

[1714909386]

1714909386

[theymos]

Satoshi Nakamoto released Bitcoin SHA-256 under the MIT/X11 Open Source license for the specific purpose of allowing the creation of other versions of Bitcoin (aka Alt-coins).

The opposite is true, in fact. He released it under the MIT license so that people wouldn't feel the need to rewrite the main Bitcoin client:

If the only library is closed source, then there's a project to make an open source one.

If the only library is GPL, then there's a project to make a non-GPL one.

If the best library is MIT, Boost, new-BSD or public domain, then we can stop re-writing it.

I don't question that GPL is a good license for operating systems, especially since non-GPL code is allowed to interface with the OS.  For smaller projects, I think the fear of a closed-source takeover is overdone.

[SaltySpitoon]

*Sigh*

The admins here as far as I can tell don't care either way about Alt Coins and their existance. If they are however causing issues to the rest of the forum, that is when there is a problem. Alt Coins have lived peacefully in their section, secluded from the rest of the Bitcoin forum without any intervention or secret hate from the admins, besides perhaps for the occasional frustration when people are posting altcoin threads in the wrong places. Cklovias will attest to that, as well as some of Bitcointalk's more frustrated moderators.

The new "attack" against altcoins mostly has to do with that section, namely the Giveaway threads and their thousands of pages of spam contributing as a safe haven for paid advertising spammers to post (that is also an ongoing issue that effects everyone) as well as just providing a sheer amount of unwanted volume to the forums.

We have suggested incredibly reasonable alternatives, people are even allowed to post their giveaway info here, we just ask that they collect the hundreds of thousands of addresses elsewhere, be it twitter, their own forums, or whatever.

I'm a big supporter of Alt coins, and have been for years. The fact that I am actively supporting the changes mean either A) I've suddenly decided to hate Alt Coins or B) I see the problem giveaway threads create, and I think we are within reason to ask that people post them elsewhere. As I said a moment ago, its actually really being blown up out of proportion. We are trying to cut down on spam, and people keep looking for alterior motives such as why the admins are threatened by alt coins, when in reality as far as I know, Theymos has no public opinion of them, and John K. has a vested interest in some.

Had we targeted specific alt coins, I'd say that is unfair, but the fact of the matter is, we just don't want the posts. Create a giveaway thread asking new members to join your own forums, follow you on twitter, or facebook, or whatever, we don't really care. It should be a very slight inconvience on the community that wants Giveaways, a huge improvement for those that don't want them, and a HUGE improvement to those that don't want forum resources being wasted on hundreds of thousands of posts like this:

THX  1JXwGd1N8eP4WWMP6mLe6UNAycDhzqvhJo

[bloods-n-cryptos]

Satoshi Nakamoto released Bitcoin SHA-256 under the MIT/X11 Open Source license for the specific purpose of allowing the creation of other versions of Bitcoin (aka Alt-coins).

The opposite is true, in fact. He released it under the MIT license so that people wouldn't feel the need to rewrite the main Bitcoin client:

If the only library is closed source, then there's a project to make an open source one.

If the only library is GPL, then there's a project to make a non-GPL one.

If the best library is MIT, Boost, new-BSD or public domain, then we can stop re-writing it.

I don't question that GPL is a good license for operating systems, especially since non-GPL code is allowed to interface with the OS.  For smaller projects, I think the fear of a closed-source takeover is overdone.

First, thanks for the informed response as I cannot get into Satoshi's mind to learn his intent for using the MIT/X11 license.

That said, I read the thread and am confused when I reread your response (or think you may be confused).

Are you claiming that Satoshi chose the MIT/X11 License (over GPL) so people would not create alt-coins by rewriting the main Bitcoin client?  That's what your response in the context of my quote seems to imply.  I could find nothing of the sort in the Satoshi thread you quoted as he seemed to be discussing the creation of another Bitcoin client that would utilize the same Bitcoin blockchain and makes no mention of alternate blockchains.

Aside from Satoshi's intent re MIT/X11 license, do you believe that there does in fact exist only one (1) official Bitcoin?

[bloods-n-cryptos]

*Sigh*

The admins here as far as I can tell don't care either way about Alt Coins and their existance. If they are however causing issues to the rest of the forum, that is when there is a problem. Alt Coins have lived peacefully in their section, secluded from the rest of the Bitcoin forum without any intervention or secret hate from the admins, besides perhaps for the occasional frustration when people are posting altcoin threads in the wrong places. Cklovias will attest to that, as well as some of [Suspicious link removed] more frustrated moderators.

The new "attack" against altcoins mostly has to do with that section, namely the Giveaway threads and their thousands of pages of spam contributing as a safe haven for paid advertising spammers to post (that is also an ongoing issue that effects everyone) as well as just providing a sheer amount of unwanted volume to the forums.

We have suggested incredibly reasonable alternatives, people are even allowed to post their giveaway info here, we just ask that they collect the hundreds of thousands of addresses elsewhere, be it twitter, their own forums, or whatever.

I'm a big supporter of Alt coins, and have been for years. The fact that I am actively supporting the changes mean either A) I've suddenly decided to hate Alt Coins or B) I see the problem giveaway threads create, and I think we are within reason to ask that people post them elsewhere. As I said a moment ago, its actually really being blown up out of proportion. We are trying to cut down on spam, and people keep looking for alterior motives such as why the admins are threatened by alt coins, when in reality as far as I know, Theymos has no public opinion of them, and John K. has a vested interest in some.

Had we targeted specific alt coins, I'd say that is unfair, but the fact of the matter is, we just don't want the posts. Create a giveaway thread asking new members to join your own forums, follow you on twitter, or facebook, or whatever, we don't really care. It should be a very slight inconvience on the community that wants Giveaways, a huge improvement for those that don't want them, and a HUGE improvement to those that don't want forum resources being wasted on hundreds of thousands of posts like this:

THX  Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin Cool Kiss 1JXwGd1N8eP4WWMP6mLe6UNAycDhzqvhJo

With all due respect, didn't you guys target the specific alt-coin "Bitcoin Scrypt" to be banned by calling it malware when it really wasn't?  In reality wasn't it banned because of the name "Bitcoin Scrypt" and then unbanned over a month later after community protest?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=292543.msg3412072#msg3412072


Rather than considering a more labor-intensive option, it seems like you guys prefer knee-jerk reactions like censure and banning when it comes to threats to the status quo from these inferior alt-coins.


You can do and say as you like but people are starting to see through all the posturing.

[anti-scam]

Satoshi Nakamura, the original creator of the Bitcoin project, picked Gavin Andresen to be his successor by giving him the alert key recognized by most of the Bitcoin network (programmed into the original Bitcoin client by Satoshi himself), and said successor is currently leading said project. When the time comes Gavin will pick his own successor, or if something unfortunate happens then the people that he has chosen to recognize as "core developers" will find one. Which means that the current Bitcoin project as led by Gavin Andresen is the official and original Bitcoin project as started by Satoshi Nakamura and saying otherwise is really rather silly. What's your point? Mad that some altcoin you have won't make it to the moon?

[SaltySpitoon]

With all due respect, didn't you guys target the specific alt-coin "Bitcoin Scrypt" to be banned by calling it malware when it really wasn't?  In reality wasn't it banned because of the name "Bitcoin Scrypt" and then unbanned over a month later after community protest?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=292543.msg3412072#msg3412072


Rather than considering a more labor-intensive option, it seems like you guys prefer knee-jerk reactions like censure and banning when it comes to threats to the status quo from these inferior alt-coins.


You can do and say as you like but people are starting to see through all the posturing.

Well first off, it wasn't malware, the official spokesperson for the coin developer put out a warning, that since they didn't change the name of the coin at all, it was just called Bitcoin, both Scrypt Bitcoin and SHA Bitcoin would be saved to the same location, so if people didn't pay attention, their SHA Bitcoin wallets and saved data would be overwritten. That turned out to be false, which is when we lifted the ban on it. The moderation team still didn't like it, as they thought it was a cheap ploy at getting attention at the risk of harming Bitcoin itself, but it was allowed and not much has been heard of it since.

Honestly, I don't care what people think, they are making uninformed decisions. We are giving perfectly logical reasons, but the rationale of the community as a whole is to question authority. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but when people of the same mindset are in an authoritative position, its just redundant. If they think I'm intentionally trying to hurt my own investments, I guess they can think that, the truth is the truth, and really we have given pretty straightforward reasoning with no prior history leading anyone to reasonably believe otherwise. I don't know about Theymos' personal interests, but from the history of the Alt Coin section to this point, my best guess is that he doesn't care either way.

Lastly, I suppose even if there was a grudge against alt coins, and the Admins decided not to allow Alt Coins here, why would it matter? Its their site, Bitcointalk isn't publically owned as much as people like to think it is. While the Admins may be enforcing their own philosophies of free speech and as people like to so elequently call it, "libertarian policies", that doesn't guarentee that they have to, that is just their personal management style. If they decided to ban everyone with the letter T in their username, they could do so, at the risk of losing the people they do want here, but in principal, its their site. If removing giveaway threads from a specific subforum on a sole site is all it takes to significantly effect the value of an Alt Coin, my advice is not to invest in it.

[bloods-n-cryptos]

Satoshi Nakamura, the original creator of the Bitcoin project, picked Gavin Andresen to be his successor by giving him the alert key recognized by most of the Bitcoin network (programmed into the original Bitcoin client by Satoshi himself), and said successor is currently leading said project. When the time comes Gavin will pick his own successor, or if something unfortunate happens then the people that he has chosen to recognize as "core developers" will find one. Which means that the current Bitcoin project as led by Gavin Andresen is the official and original Bitcoin project as started by Satoshi Nakamura and saying otherwise is really rather silly. What's your point? Mad that some altcoin you have won't make it to the moon?

My point is that it is a legal fiction here at BitcoinTalk that there is one official Bitcoin.


You forgot that theymos is reputed to have an alert key for Bitcoin SHA256 too.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Alerts

[bloods-n-cryptos]

With all due respect, didn't you guys target the specific alt-coin "Bitcoin Scrypt" to be banned by calling it malware when it really wasn't?  In reality wasn't it banned because of the name "Bitcoin Scrypt" and then unbanned over a month later after community protest?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=292543.msg3412072#msg3412072


Rather than considering a more labor-intensive option, it seems like you guys prefer knee-jerk reactions like censure and banning when it comes to threats to the status quo from these inferior alt-coins.


You can do and say as you like but people are starting to see through all the posturing.

Well first off, it wasn't malware, the official spokesperson for the coin developer put out a warning, that since they didn't change the name of the coin at all, it was just called Bitcoin, both Scrypt Bitcoin and SHA Bitcoin would be saved to the same location, so if people didn't pay attention, their SHA Bitcoin wallets and saved data would be overwritten. That turned out to be false, which is when we lifted the ban on it. The moderation team still didn't like it, as they thought it was a cheap ploy at getting attention at the risk of harming Bitcoin itself, but it was allowed and not much has been heard of it since.

...

I disagree with the statement in bold above.

Sept 11, 2013 - Banned  for the reasons you stated (and more).
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=292543.0

Sept 11, 2013 - Malware/overwriting wallet demonstrated to be false.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=292543.msg3133107#msg3133107

Sept 28, 2013 - You claim another reason for ban is confusion re name even if malware accusation was false.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=292543.msg3249904#msg3249904

Sept 28, 2013 - Malware/overwriting wallet again demonstrated to be false.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=292543.msg3250224#msg3250224

Oct 7, 2013 - You un-stickied Banning thread while stating ban was still in force
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=292543.msg3290330#msg3290330

Oct 11, 2013 - You re-iterate that the ban is about confusion re name
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=292543.msg3323441#msg3323441

Oct 12, 2013 - You state "To the people that are complaining, I highly advise rereading the OP where I specifically say it has to do with the coin's name."
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=292543.msg3323828#msg3323828

Oct 14, 2013 - You quote the coin developer as changing the warning
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=292543.msg3338566#msg3338566

Oct 25, 2013 - Ban lifted after lack of feedback from moderation staff
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=292543.msg3412072#msg3412072


So when you said that you banned it because of the wallet overwriting warning and lifted the ban as soon as you found out it was false, you are mistaken, on both accounts.

On the other hand, I completely agree with your remaining two paragraphs.  I was simply stating my opinion that it is a legal fiction here at BitcoinTalk that there is one official bitcoin.

[SaltySpitoon]

With all due respect, didn't you guys target the specific alt-coin "Bitcoin Scrypt" to be banned by calling it malware when it really wasn't?  In reality wasn't it banned because of the name "Bitcoin Scrypt" and then unbanned over a month later after community protest?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=292543.msg3412072#msg3412072


Rather than considering a more labor-intensive option, it seems like you guys prefer knee-jerk reactions like censure and banning when it comes to threats to the status quo from these inferior alt-coins.


You can do and say as you like but people are starting to see through all the posturing.

Well first off, it wasn't malware, the official spokesperson for the coin developer put out a warning, that since they didn't change the name of the coin at all, it was just called Bitcoin, both Scrypt Bitcoin and SHA Bitcoin would be saved to the same location, so if people didn't pay attention, their SHA Bitcoin wallets and saved data would be overwritten. That turned out to be false, which is when we lifted the ban on it. The moderation team still didn't like it, as they thought it was a cheap ploy at getting attention at the risk of harming Bitcoin itself, but it was allowed and not much has been heard of it since.

...

I disagree with the statement in bold above.

Sept 11, 2013 - Banned  for the reasons you stated (and more).
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=292543.0

Sept 11, 2013 - Malware/overwriting wallet demonstrated to be false.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=292543.msg3133107#msg3133107

Sept 28, 2013 - You claim another reason for ban is confusion re name even if malware accusation was false.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=292543.msg3249904#msg3249904

Sept 28, 2013 - Malware/overwriting wallet again demonstrated to be false.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=292543.msg3250224#msg3250224

Oct 7, 2013 - You un-stickied Banning thread while stating ban was still in force
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=292543.msg3290330#msg3290330

Oct 11, 2013 - You re-iterate that the ban is about confusion re name
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=292543.msg3323441#msg3323441

Oct 12, 2013 - You state "To the people that are complaining, I highly advise rereading the OP where I specifically say it has to do with the coin's name."
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=292543.msg3323828#msg3323828

Oct 14, 2013 - You quote the coin developer as changing the warning
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=292543.msg3338566#msg3338566

Oct 25, 2013 - Ban lifted after lack of feedback from moderation staff
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=292543.msg3412072#msg3412072


So when you said that you banned it because of the wallet overwriting warning and lifted the ban as soon as you found out it was false, you are mistaken, on both accounts.

On the other hand, I completely agree with your remaining two paragraphs.  I was simply stating my opinion that it is a legal fiction here at BitcoinTalk that there is one official bitcoin.

And I disagree with your statement based on my first post you have linked. It did have to do with the name, the name is the reason it was supposed to overwrite. Quite frankly, until the Coin Developer gave it the go ahead, saying it was safe, I didn't trust that the supporters weren't just lying to get it unbanned.

So there has been a lot of uproar about the new Scrypt "Bitcoin". I have discussed it with the other Staff members, and we feel it is in the forum user's best interest to not allow topics about the Scrypt Bitcoin on Bitcointalk.

Now before people get all upset about the censorship, let me explain our position,

First off, it is incredibly confusing to the Bitcointalk members, and even more so to new members. Those that stay out of the Altcoin scene in general are at a high risk of being caught in some level of fraud facilitated by the Scrypt Bitcoin, due to its name.

Second, users stand the risk of financial loss. Improper downloading of the Scrypt Bitcoin can cause damage to your real Bitcoin wallet. This is a similar stance that the forums holds to Malware. Even if the Scrypt Bitcoin did not intend to do damage, the possibility for damage is great, especially to those who don't understand the risks.

This is not a crackdown on all things Scrypt Bitcoin, we are not going to ban members for mentioning it in passing or anything insane like that, however we do request that you do not create new threads about it, or any download links or service discussion threads about it. I will be talking to the people who have existing threads regarding the Scrypt Bitcoin and figuring out what to do about those. New threads will be moved to the trashcan.

There are no hard feelings toward the coin, or Dev, however like mentioned before, its just too confusing and risky to actively allow a coin which could harm the forum users as a whole. Should the Developer of the Scrypt Bitcoin decide to change the name of it, it is welcomed back here.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask,

SaltySpitoon

The original coin release from the developer on Cryptocointalk:

IMPORTANT NOTE

Installing the wallet:  Since this is an EXACT copy of Bitcoin when you install the client it will attempt to use the existing bitcoin roaming (windows) folder.  You're going to need to rename the Bitcoin SHA-256 roaming folder to something else to use the Bitcoin Scrypt client.  BEWARE, this could destroy your wallet if you start mining Bitcoin Scrypt using the Bitcoin SHA-256 wallet.dat file.

Also, CryptoCoinTalk.com just posts cryptocoin releases.  Don't shoot the messenger.

It was then later changed to:

Well, the coin's announcement thread on the Alt Coin forum has been changed to,

IMPORTANT NOTE

Installing Bitcoin Scrypt will not delete your SHA Bitcoin folder, it will just integrate with it, so when you run the SHA version, your Scrypt BTC will be unconfirmed and not usable and vice versa.

In light of it not actually overwriting SHA Bitcoin wallets, does anyone feel that we should go back to allowing the threads with disclaimers?

which was when it was unbanned. Believe me, I actually appreciate that you are looking for real context and support rather than just making wild claims, but despite a lot of other's opinion not to allow Scrypt Bitcoin, I removed the ban once the developer released that it would not harm your SHA Bitcoin wallet. I knew quite well that even though we disliked the coin, it was junk and would die.

[bloods-n-cryptos]

And I disagree with your statement based on my first post you have linked. It did have to do with the name, the name is the reason it was supposed to overwrite.

But on Oct  11, 2013 you wrote:

The BITCOIN forums don't want immitators confusing/harming their BITCOIN users. That is the main priority. Its really not up for negotiation, the threads will be removed for the reasons that I have gone to lengths to explain already. Yep, censorship is bad, but necessary from time to time. I don't see anyone complaining when someone posts fake wallet stealer clients and I remove those.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=292543.msg3323441#msg3323441

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=292543.msg3323441#msg3323441

You can't have it both ways regarding the name, so why was it banned?  Imitation re name confusion or wallet.dat protection?  They are two different things.

which was when it was unbanned. Believe me, I actually appreciate that you are looking for real context and support rather than just making wild claims, but despite a lot of other's opinion not to allow Scrypt Bitcoin, I removed the ban once the developer released that it would not harm your SHA Bitcoin wallet. I knew quite well that even though we disliked the coin, it was junk and would die.

It was more than 2 weeks after you first learned the developer updated the warning but didn't un-ban until being prodded by the community.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=292543.msg3356282#msg3356282
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=292543.msg3412020#msg3412020
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=292543.msg3412072#msg3412072


I'm not trying to pick on you Saltyspoon but I just want to set the record straight to prove my point that BitcoinTalk perpectuates a legal fiction that there is one official Bitcoin.  

That said, I also know it's easy for me to sit here and knit-pick someone who posts a lot more frequently than me and understand if you can't recall everything perfectly 100% of time so we can agree to disagree on that point.

[JoelKatz]

I'm not trying to pick on you Saltyspoon but I just want to set the record straight to prove my point that BitcoinTalk perpectuates a legal fiction that there is one official Bitcoin.

There is one official Bitcoin block chain. It should be a goal of the entire community to ensure that there is a definitive way to pay someone a Bitcoin. There is nothing wrong with protecting the *name* Bitcoin, and I think that's something Bitcoin supports should strive to do. If not, Bitcoin's chances as a currency will be harmed.

My recollection of the "bitcoin scrypt" issue was that it was initially banned out of a belief that it could case damage to bitcoin wallets. Once that was resolved, the ban remained because of the dilution of the bitcoin name. In my opinion, that's a perfectly legitimate reason for a ban.

[bloods-n-cryptos]

I'm not trying to pick on you Saltyspoon but I just want to set the record straight to prove my point that BitcoinTalk perpectuates a legal fiction that there is one official Bitcoin.

There is one official Bitcoin block chain. It should be a goal of the entire community to ensure that there is a definitive way to pay someone a Bitcoin. There is nothing wrong with protecting the *name* Bitcoin, and I think that's something Bitcoin supports should strive to do. If not, Bitcoin's chances as a currency will be harmed.

My recollection of the "bitcoin scrypt" issue was that it was initially banned out of a belief that it could case damage to bitcoin wallets. Once that was resolved, the ban remained because of the dilution of the bitcoin name. In my opinion, that's a perfectly legitimate reason for a ban.

And that is the rub.  How does one "protect" the name Bitcoin where the name is not trademarked, the protocol is not centralized and the code is not closed-source?

I'm not arguing that the current blockchain is not the official blockchain of Bitcoin SHA256, but rather, that any fork of the Bitcoin blockchain can still be considered Bitcoin notwithstanding what any forum moderators may say otherwise.  

[r3wt]

I'm not trying to pick on you Saltyspoon but I just want to set the record straight to prove my point that BitcoinTalk perpectuates a legal fiction that there is one official Bitcoin.

There is one official Bitcoin block chain. It should be a goal of the entire community to ensure that there is a definitive way to pay someone a Bitcoin. There is nothing wrong with protecting the *name* Bitcoin, and I think that's something Bitcoin supports should strive to do. If not, Bitcoin's chances as a currency will be harmed.

My recollection of the "bitcoin scrypt" issue was that it was initially banned out of a belief that it could case damage to bitcoin wallets. Once that was resolved, the ban remained because of the dilution of the bitcoin name. In my opinion, that's a perfectly legitimate reason for a ban.

i agree on all points. on the surface, we oppose censorship, but in reality censorship is a gray area, and we must only oppose censhorship to the extent that a lack of censorship does not adversely affect us and our investments. this is a bitcoin forum and as such it is a major investment vehicle for bitcoin.

Therefore, I believe the main interest or goal of the staff should be to protect Bitcoin. Alt currencies, while sharing the protocol are not bitcoin and should therefore be seen as secondary to the issues that surround bitcoin.

[SaltySpitoon]

Well first, you can protect the name Bitcoin, by not mining/using other coin's named Bitcoin to your question above.

Second, the question to ban Scrypt Bitcoin or not to ban scrypt bitcoin came up over a month earlier (Staff forum)

Normally, I don't interfere with people making new coins, or naming them whatever they want. However, there is a new coin called "Bitcoin" which is a Scrypt coin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=290083 .

I just wanted some of your input, as this coin could very very easily confuse new people, and I'm not necessarily sure what to do about it, my first thought was to

1) Ask the OP to add some sort of large disclaimer making sure people know that this is not the real SHA Bitcoin

however, naming a coin that is not Bitcoin, Bitcoin, could also be interpreted as some sort of fraudulent ploy to trick people.

At that point, I just asked that people put disclaimers make sure people were clear when saying Bitcoin vs Scrypt Bitcoin. There were issues with threads that said 1000 BITCOIN GIVEAWAY! And such, that was the preliminary issue. It was September 11th when I found out about the Dev's warning that the coin could overwrite SHA Bitcoin data,

IMPORTANT NOTE


Installing the wallet:  Since this is an EXACT copy of Bitcoin when you install the client it will attempt to use the existing bitcoin roaming (windows) folder.  You're going to need to rename the Bitcoin SHA-256 roaming folder to something else to use the Bitcoin Scrypt client.  BEWARE, this could destroy your wallet if you start mining Bitcoin Scrypt using the Bitcoin SHA-256 wallet.dat file.


Also, CryptoCoinTalk.com just posts cryptocoin releases.  Don't shoot the messenger.


Edit*

Alright, I have since put the lockdown on Scrypt Bitcoin. As far as I can see, there are only two threads about it, so I've just pmed the OPs asking if they wouldn't mind locking the threads.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=292543.0

If there is anything I missed, or you think I could word something better, or the thread could use something else, let me know.

Which is consistent with the date that I posted the ban in the first place. That leads me to believe, that we were concerned about the use of Bitcoin's name for a month before banning the coin for its potential threat. Really not that it matters to me anyway, knowing what I know now, I would disallow Scrypt Bitcoin again in a heartbeat, just because its annoying to be constantly confused as to what people are talking about. For example, if someone makes a 1 BTC bet with you, you win, and then pays you a scrypt BTC, its a pain in the ass.

I just want to make sure you guys know that even a decision as trivial as that, there was a month's worth of discussion. We don't just throw around bans on content willy nilly. Scrypt Bitcoin posed to be a massive inconvience for the forum users in general, and the moderation team, and the fact that we even allowed Scrypt Bitcoin for that month actually baffles me now. That being said, if there was that much discussion and lenience in a single coin, imagine how bad it would have had to be to put the smackdown on Giveaways of all types.

i agree on all points. on the surface, we oppose censorship, but in reality censorship is a gray area, and we must only oppose censhorship to the extent that a lack of censorship does not adversely affect us and our investments. this is a bitcoin forum and as such it is a major investment vehicle for bitcoin.

Therefore, I believe the main interest or goal of the staff should be to protect Bitcoin. Alt currencies, while sharing the protocol are not bitcoin and should therefore be seen as secondary to the issues that surround bitcoin.

I couldn't say it better myself. We oppose censorship, but really there is a line that we must draw using our best judgement. Else no one would be able to post anything. I wont argue any Alt Coin's right to exist, that is solely up to the free market, however the Bitcointalk Admins and Mods are in charge of what content is allowed on their site. The "libertarian" policies are based on the owner's beliefs, not some fundamental or protected right. So if someone gets censored, we are accountable to ourselves and the rest of the staff, and we will give each other a hell of a hard time if a mistake is made and not fixed.

[anti-scam]

I'm not trying to pick on you Saltyspoon but I just want to set the record straight to prove my point that BitcoinTalk perpectuates a legal fiction that there is one official Bitcoin.

There is one official Bitcoin block chain. It should be a goal of the entire community to ensure that there is a definitive way to pay someone a Bitcoin. There is nothing wrong with protecting the *name* Bitcoin, and I think that's something Bitcoin supports should strive to do. If not, Bitcoin's chances as a currency will be harmed.

My recollection of the "bitcoin scrypt" issue was that it was initially banned out of a belief that it could case damage to bitcoin wallets. Once that was resolved, the ban remained because of the dilution of the bitcoin name. In my opinion, that's a perfectly legitimate reason for a ban.

i agree on all points. on the surface, we oppose censorship, but in reality censorship is a gray area, and we must only oppose censhorship to the extent that a lack of censorship does not adversely affect us and our investments. this is a bitcoin forum and as such it is a major investment vehicle for bitcoin.

Therefore, I believe the main interest or goal of the staff should be to protect Bitcoin. Alt currencies, while sharing the protocol are not bitcoin and should therefore be seen as secondary to the issues that surround bitcoin.

r3wt has it right. The text at the top of your screen says "Bitcoin Forum", which very obviously means to most people what the OP calls "Bitcoin SHA-256". Why should a private forum devoted to a particular thing allow something harmful to that particular thing? To use your Linux example, do you think that going to a Debian forum and trying to convince people to use some hacked up version based off of the Windows NT kernel would be allowed?

[bloods-n-cryptos]

r3wt has it right. The text at the top of your screen says "Bitcoin Forum", which very obviously means to most people what the OP calls "Bitcoin SHA-256". Why should a private forum devoted to a particular thing allow something harmful to that particular thing? To use your Linux example, do you think that going to a Debian forum and trying to convince people to use some hacked up version based off of the Windows NT kernel would be allowed?

I am not arguing against that and actually generally agree, especially in the context of a private forum like this.

All I am stating is that it is a fiction to state that Bitcoin SHA256 is the official Bitcoin in a legal sense.  Ergo, it is a legal fiction perpetuated by the mods of this forum which goes against the spirit of the MIT/X11 License.

Stated differently, legally it is not true (a fiction) that Bitcoin SHA256 is the official Bitcoin because legally there is no official Bitcoin in any legal jurisdiction (e.g., no one has the power to take any legal action against anyone claiming to be the official Bitcoin anywhere in the world).

I appreciate your arguments and generally don't disagree, but all I have been saying is that it is a legal fiction that Bitcoin SHA256 is the one official Bitcoin, as per my title.

If anyone still disagrees, please look up the words official, legal and fiction, in a dictionary before responding.

[BadBear]

What you think of Bitcoin is irrelevant. Fact of the matter is, it's a forum created for and dedicated to it. Get over it.

[theymos]

First, thanks for the informed response as I cannot get into Satoshi's mind to learn his intent for using the MIT/X11 license.

That said, I read the thread and am confused when I reread your response (or think you may be confused).

Are you claiming that Satoshi chose the MIT/X11 License (over GPL) so people would not create alt-coins by rewriting the main Bitcoin client?  That's what your response in the context of my quote seems to imply.  I could find nothing of the sort in the Satoshi thread you quoted as he seemed to be discussing the creation of another Bitcoin client that would utilize the same Bitcoin blockchain and makes no mention of alternate blockchains.

Aside from Satoshi's intent re MIT/X11 license, do you believe that there does in fact exist only one (1) official Bitcoin?

The point of the quote I posted is to disprove your claim that Bitcoin is MIT-licensed because Satoshi wanted altcoins. He gave his real reason there: he didn't see any point in forcing people to duplicate his effort in creating a Bitcoin client. (If you read many more of his posts, you'll see that he also wanted Bitcoin-Qt to remain the main Bitcoin client for the foreseeable future. He didn't want competing clients destabilizing the network.)  He didn't say anything about promoting competition, decentralization, etc.

Satoshi was not a huge champion of decentralization. He viewed the Bitcoin network as being equal to his Bitcoin software, and he tightly controlled all code changes to this software. In several cases, he secretly changed some of the core Bitcoin rules in ways that would nowadays cause absolute outrage. For example, the 1 MB block size limit didn't always exist. He snuck that in along with some other changes without announcing it or asking anyone's opinion. Don't get me wrong: Bitcoin itself is very decentralized due to Satoshi's work, but if Satoshi returned, everyone complaining about current centralization issues would find him to be much worse. So your "appeals to Satoshi" are ridiculous.

On this forum, there is only one Bitcoin. Elsewhere, you can define things however you wish.

[anti-scam]

r3wt has it right. The text at the top of your screen says "Bitcoin Forum", which very obviously means to most people what the OP calls "Bitcoin SHA-256". Why should a private forum devoted to a particular thing allow something harmful to that particular thing? To use your Linux example, do you think that going to a Debian forum and trying to convince people to use some hacked up version based off of the Windows NT kernel would be allowed?

I am not arguing against that and actually generally agree, especially in the context of a private forum like this.

All I am stating is that it is a fiction to state that Bitcoin SHA256 is the official Bitcoin in a legal sense.  Ergo, it is a legal fiction perpetuated by the mods of this forum which goes against the spirit of the MIT/X11 License.

Stated differently, legally it is not true (a fiction) that Bitcoin SHA256 is the official Bitcoin because legally there is no official Bitcoin in any legal jurisdiction (e.g., no one has the power to take any legal action against anyone claiming to be the official Bitcoin anywhere in the world).

I appreciate your arguments and generally don't disagree, but all I have been saying is that it is a legal fiction that Bitcoin SHA256 is the one official Bitcoin, as per my title.

If anyone still disagrees, please look up the words official, legal and fiction, in a dictionary before responding.

Try advertising your Bitcoin scrypt or Bitcoin Skein or Bitcoin whatever as Bitcoin, sell them to people for dollars, and try your argument before a court when some very unhappy customers decide to take action. Many courts have already made legal recognition of Bitcoin and the idea of different Bitcoins (as opposed to different altcoins) was not found in their opinions, nor in any legislative hearings. You are wrong in both a factual and legal sense.